5

1 livestock, including poultry, and other animals, of the pres2 ence of any chemical substance or mixture which the chief 3 executive of any such State and the Administrator have 4 reason to believe may be injurious to the health or welfare 5 of any individual or animal in such State or adjacent States 6 or regions. Such grants may also be utilized by any such 7 State for the treatment of human beings, livestock, includ8 ing poultry, and other animals adversely affected by chemi9 cal substances or mixtures, to the extent that such treatment 10 is otherwise not reasonably available. Nothing contained in 11 this paragraph shall authorize the Administrator to make 12 grants which would duplicate grants under the other provi13 sions of this section.

14

"(5) Upon application by the chief executive of a State 15 the Administrator is authorized to make payments to any 16 individual for actual medical expenses incurred by such 17 individual in the detection or treatment of any injury to any 18 such individual caused, or reasonably believed to be caused, 19 by the presence of the chemical substance or mixture which

20 is the subject of such application.

2220

21

"(6) Grants and payments made available under the 22 authority provided in paragraphs (3), (4), or (5) of this 23 subsection may be made for any circumstance described in 24 paragraph (2) occurring on or after January 1, 1973.".

6

1 SEC. 102. Section 28 of the Toxic Substances Control

2 Act is further amended

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

(1) in subsection (c) thereof, as designated by section 101 (a) (1) of this title, by adding immediately after "(a)" the following: "and (b)";

(2) in subsection (d) thereof, as designated by section 101 (a) (1) of this title, by adding immediately after "(a)" the following: “and (b)"; and

(3) in subsection (e) thereof, as designated by section 101 (a) (1) of this title, by inserting immediately before the last sentence therein the following new sentence: "For the purpose of making grants and payments under subsection (b) there are authorized to be appropriated $50,000,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1978, $50,000,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1979, and $50,000,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1980.".

TITLE II-AUTHORIZATION FOR

APPROPRIATIONS

SEC. 201. Section 29 of the Toxic Substances Control

(1) by striking out "$12,625,000" and inserting

in lieu thereof "$50,000,000;" and

1

2

3

7

(2) by striking out "$16,200,000" and inserting

in lieu thereof "$100,000,000".

SEC. 202. At the end of section 26 of the Toxic Sub

4 stances Control Act (90 Stat. 2625), insert the following

5 new subsection:

6

"(h) RULEMAKING AUTHORITY.-The Administrator 7 is authorized to prescribe such rules as are necessary to

8 carry out his or her functions under this Act.".

Passed the Senate October 31 (legislative day, Octo

ber 29), 1977.

Attest:

J. S. KIMMITT,

Secretary.

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

722 JACKSON PLACE, N. W.

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20006

March 8, 1978

Honorable Bob Eckhardt

Chairman, Subcommittee on Consumer

Protection and Finance

Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee

House of Representatives

Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Eckhardt:

Thank you for extending this opportunity to the Council on Environmental
Quality to offer comments on S. 1531, entitled "an Act to amend the
Toxic Substances Control Act to establish a program of assistance to
states for the protection and indemnification of individuals injured in
their business or person by chemical substances," and on H.R. 9616,
entitled "a Bill to establish a compensation system for victims of
toxic substance pollution."

The Council shares the committee's concerns about the adverse health
effects resulting from exposure to toxic substances. CEQ's recently
released Eighth Annual Report discusses several examples of the serious
consequences from certain types of exposures, including exposure from
kepone pollution of the James River, polybrominated biphenyl (PBB)
pollution of the food chain in Michigan and leptophos poisoning from
pesticide manufacturing in Texas. The Council applauds your constructive
efforts to focus attention on the need to ensure adequate compensation
for victims of toxic substance pollution. A polluter pays principle in
this area would both ensure fairness to those injured and aid in the
achievement of National environmental and health goals.

We are unable at the present time to provide the Administration's position on the two bills mentioned above. We have not had an opportunity to consider these matters in the detail required by the complexity of the issues. The Administration is, however, extremely interested in exploring these matters raised by the legislation and will therefore be pursuing them vigorously starting immediately.

We look forward to working closely with the staff of the committee on this important issue.

Mr. ECKHARDT. It gives me a great deal of pleasure to welcome our first witness, Congressman Bill Brodhead, accompanied by Stephen M. Soble.

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM M. BRODHEAD, A REPRESENTA

TIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, AC-
COMPANIED BY STEPHEN M. SOBLE, STATUTE EDITOR,
HARVARD JOURNAL ON LEGISLATION

Mr. BRODHEAD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ECKHARDT. Mr. Brodhead was an extremely valuable member of this subcommittee.

Mr. BRODHEAD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Toxic substances occupy a unique position among industrial products in our society. They are unquestionably useful for a variety of necessary and worthwhile purposes; our day-to-day lives would be substantially different without them. However, by their nature, toxic substances are among the most deadly materials known to man, and toxic substance pollution is one of the most pervasive and potentially most devastating health problems today.

Exposure to toxic substances should not be a condition of residency in the United States. However, the important advances we have made to date toward safeguarding the public from the hazards of toxic contaminations have too often not been successful. People all over the country continue to be exposed to toxic substances in the air, water, and food, and the number of identifiable victims is increasing.

I believe it is time for Congress to consider a comprehensive approach to this problem that will not only provide adequate compensation for victims of toxic substance pollution, but will also complement efforts to prevent future injuries.

The proliferation of toxic substances by industry in recent years has been dramatic. Tens of thousands of toxic substances are curently in use and are being cataloged by the Environmental Protection agency. America's more than 5,000 chemical firms introduce 1,000 new chemicals to the marketplace each year.

Because the production of toxic substances cut across industry lines, there is no reliable figure on the total sales of all toxic substances in the country. However, chemical companies and related industries sold more than $112 billion worth of products in 1977. By contrast, total U.S. auto sales, including parts, amounted to $47 billion. The steel industry accounted for $38 billion in sales.

Production of toxic substances is thus a huge industry that shows every indication of growing even larger. While toxic substances provide many benefits to society, they also create some special problems that are becoming increasingly widespread.

Many scientists have expressed serious concern about the potential for health damage, particularly cancer, caused by chemicals in the environment. Even exposure to small amounts of toxic substances is considered dangerous, since seemingly safe, low levels of toxicants may accumulate in the body undetected for years until a threshold level is passed. Toxicants may also combine with other